onwonder2

	Currently writing "On Wonder", a title in the Humanities E-book's "Philosophy Insights" series. It's not due until the autumn of 2007, so, in the meantime, this slip of a web page (inspired, in no small part, by the form of Robert Majzels' wonderful novel Apikoros Sleuth) will have to do.
fushigi Western philosophy's greatest treasure is found at the very beginning. [I am not referring solely to philosophy's chronological beginning, its 'proper' beginning in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Although it is found there too.] By "beginning", I mean philosophy's eternally recurring beginning, the beginning that is always beginning and is present in every philosophical moment --the experience of wonder β, which is the greatest treasure. If wonder shares portions of a common chronology with philosophy, it's not because the two are necessarily entangled (wonder predates western philosophy, even philosophy admits as much). If philosophy and wonder are entangled in the common narrative it is because western philosophy has claimed wonder as its own: only to discard it.	wonder Socrates These three axioms, if I am not mistaken, are fighting with one another in our minds in the case of the dice, or, again, in such a case as this-if I were to say that I, who am of a certain height and taller than you, may within a year, without gaining or losing in height, be not so tall-not that I should have lost, but that you would have increased. In such a case, I am afterwards what I once was not, and yet I have not become; for I could not have become without becoming, neither could I have become less without losing somewhat of my height; and I could give you ten thousand examples of similar contradictions, if we admit them at all. I believe that you follow me, Theaetetus; for I suspect that you are familiar with this kind of puzzle. Theaetetus Oh yes, indeed, Socrates, I often wonder like mad what these things can mean; sometimes when I'm looking at them I begin to feel quite giddy. Socrates I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins	books Descartes, Rene "The Passions of the Soul" Fisher, Philip, "Wonder, the Rainbow, and the Aesthetics of Rare Experiences Glasgow, R. D. V., "The Comedy of Mind" Hepburn, R. W., "Wonder and Other Essays" Irigaray, Lucy "An Ethics of Sexual Difference" Llewelyn, John "Seeing Through God: A Geophenomenology"
Western philosophy claims wonder as its mother, and --like an ungrateful child-- sees itself as an improvement upon her. Does wonder have anything to say about that? ------------------- β I once attempted a blog on wonder, but found myself holding back with some ruthlessness. My insights on the matter (such as they are) are the hard-won products of long meditation and reflection and a blog seemed to be a completely inappropriate venue for them. Thus, I found myself restrained by a sense of decorum and the related fear of speaking too soon. [Oh, to be repressed now that winter's here!] I may return to blogging wonder when I have something published on the topic --that would make more sense. Until then, this slip of a web page will have to do. -------------------	in wonder. He who said that Iris (the messenger of heaven) is the child of Thaumas (wonder) made good genealogy. Plato, Theaetetus 155d The Greeks: mythos to logos? Thaumas is the ancient Greek god of wonder, who fathered Iris, the rainbow. In accordance with Socrates' metaphorical approval, the rainbow --a glorious encyclopedia of primary colors-- represents philosophy, as something that emerges from the obscurity of wonder, the deep sea that Thaumas called home. For Socrates in the Theaetetus (full text from the Internet Classics Archive), wonder is something that philosophy improves upon, and makes clear. For my part, I am reluctant to accept the idea that wonder is something to be improved upon, something that should be cast aside when you're done with it like a pencil used to work out an equation. Is wonder unclear? Should one ever be done with wonder? Just how does philosophy constitute a progress upon wonder? --------------------------- links The Origin of Europe with the Greek Discovery of the World, by Klaus Held; Plato and Wonder, by David Bollert; The Encounter Between Wonder and Generosity, by Margeurite La Caze; The Evolution of Wonder: Religious and Neuroscientific Perspectives, a presentation by Kelly Bulkeley; http://suzannagig.journalspace.com/ Suzanne Nixon's blog, where wonder raises its lovely head from time to time. ------------------- Φ If wonder were to become part of the philosophical method --not simply remain in its role as the inauguration of philosophy-- if it were to become an integral part of philosophy's working mechanics (if that were possible), then philosophy would find its natural position --a discipline in the service of wonder. --------------- If you have reached a fixed conclusion regarding the fundamental questions of life, then you have failed and must start again. --The Dalmatian Mediations, Anonymous, p. 69 ---------------	Philosophy, then, is not a doctrine, not some simplistic scheme for orienting oneself in the world, certainly not an instrument or achievement of human Dasein. Rather, it is this Dasein itself insofar as it comes to be, in freedom, from out of its own ground [...] But those who wish to transform must bear within themselves the power of a fidelity that knows how to preserve. And one cannot feel this power growing within unless one is up in wonder. And no one can be caught up in wonder without traveling to the outermost limits of the possible. But no one will ever become the friend of the possible without remaining open to dialogue with the powers that operate in the whole of human existence. But that is the comportment of the philosopher: to listen attentively to what is already sung forth, which can still be perceived in each essential happening of world --From the text of Heidegger's speech at Husserl's seventieth birthday celebration. Full text [PDF]. As you would expect with Herr Heidegger, wonder becomes a very serious business in his hands. And yet, the consequences --for philosophy-- of a thriving wonder are serious indeed.